In his speech to AIPAC last night, Israeli Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu described his approach to Israeli-Palestinian and Israeli-Arab peace. The speech left all of us at APN skeptical about the sincerity of the Prime Minister's commitment to peace - a commitment that will be judged not by Netanyahu's skill in laying out his own "peace paradigm" but by his policies and actions. Specifically,
the speech raised serious concerns that we hope Netanyahu will dispel when he meets with President Obama later this month:
- Netanyahu failed to articulate support for the two-state solution. He spoke about process but failed to offer the kind of political horizon necessary for such a process to have credibility.
- Netanyahu ducked two "make-or-break" issues for any peace effort: settlement expansion in the West Bank, and settlement expansion and the demolition of Palestinian homes in East Jerusalem. The absence of any statement on these issues raises a "red flag," given recent comments by Israeli ministers that indicate Israeli government support for continued settlement expansion and demolitions.
- Netanyahu capped his speech with the argument that peace is impossible unless the Palestinians "recognize Israel as the Jewish state..." This is a red herring. As noted recently by Dov Weissglas, Chief of Staff to then-Prime Minister Ariel Sharon, "...Israel is a Jewish state. It is the Jewish state. It does not need the recognition of the Palestinians-or of any other country. According to the road map, the final status negotiations are to end in the establishment of a Palestinian state, which must recognize Israel, as Israel has defined itself. It will therefore recognize Israel as the state of the Jews. The demand for recognition now is like creating a problem where none exists. It is neither dignified nor believable."
- Netanyahu spoke of improving ties with the Arab world, but failed to acknowledge the Arab Peace Initiative. He also failed to mention the Israel-Syria peace track.
If Netanyahu is serious about peace - and serious about maintaining good relations with the Obama Administration - he should use the upcoming meeting with President Barack Obama later this month to clarify his commitment. If he is serious about working to achieve peace, he will use this meeting to:
- Unequivocally embrace the two-state solution without adding new conditions for peace.
- Commit to freezing settlement expansion, Jerusalem home demolitions, and other acts that destroy the credibility of any peace efforts.
- Embrace the Arab Peace Initiative as an important basis for making progress toward Israeli-Arab peace.
- Commit to re-launching Israel-Syria peace negotiations and achieving an Israel-Syria peace agreement.
If Netanyahu makes clear that he is serious about peace, APN will happily support his efforts. Until then, we remain skeptical.
Email a friend
twitter
facebook
feed
I totally agree with Lara's comments. I heard a little of Perez's speech to AIPAC on the radio, and he seemed to be saying what Netanyahu was saying about the Palestinians recognizing Israel. But as Lara says, its a two way street. Israel also has to accept a Palestinian state. I believe Netanyahu is trying to keep that from happening. I agree with what Bob Simon was saying on the Charlie Rose Show. The current situation will only become worse for Israel, the Palestinians, and the U.S. if a two-state solution isn't worked out, and relatively soon. The problem in the U.S. is that too many of our politicians go by what lobbyists have the most power and money, and that is AIPAC. Even though there are many groups, including Jewish groups, working for a peaceful two-state solution, AIPAC probably has a lot moree money than all the rest put together. Of course there are also the far right Christian groups who also raise a lot of money to back Netanyahu's position. So far, when Isreal does something we don't like, our politicians say naughty, naughty--wink, wink and let them continue with what they've been doing. I've written enough.
I have just returned from Israel/Palestine. I am an old man. I wanted the State of Israel when it was created, but I am now aware that there never was a fair arrangement for the Palestinians. The world was ashamed, and rightly so, that everyone had failed to help the Jews as they headed for the Holocaust. Now we must help Israel reverse its actions, becoming victimizers instead of victims. We must all come together behind a two-state solution and withhold USA money from Israel if it fails to walk that road.
There will never be peace in the Mideast without a viable, contiguous Palestinian state. Moreover, Israel will never be secure nor will the United States be secure from terrorism, without a balanced, fair two-state solution.
A two-state solution can be achieved. If the U.S. applies the right pressure and the compromises as depicted in the Geneva accord are implemented(i.e. pre-67' borders), the solution, as its been called, can be achieved. The challenge will be, however, to pressure the political entities involved to overcome the minority opposition to a solution that is preferred by the majority of the population of both Palestine and Israel. Izzeldin Abuelaish affords us an opportunity to emphasize the humanitarian aspect of the conflict and how deeply tragic it would be if we do not change course and pro-act a state of mutual dignity in a land long defined by not only milk and honey but blood and tears. The Jews of the middle east understand that Arabs and Jews are closely related and that to resolve a conflict centered around land primarily one must pro-act compromises specifically in the area of settlements of land disputes. Netanyahu is truly a politician, which means that if the greater of political entities wields substantial pressure he will concede, at least in part, to the demands of that entity(i.e. the U.S.). So we as Americans must be clear on our position and let the voice of mutual respect be heard. This is not an idealist vs. realist paradigmatic dilemma, rather it is a situation where painful compromise is the single way to overcome the forces of fundamentalism, radicalism, racism, and even love for a land in the context of two distinct and convicted paradigms. We must act now and we must act together. Shalom - Salaam.
Is not the U.S. viable without Alaska and Hawaii as part of a contiguous country?
Why are longstanding positions in certain Palestinian groups which reject Israel as a Jewish homeland (Hamas charter)only obstacles that can be "worked around" if Fatah and Hamas form a unity government, but any even mild (and unspoken!)posturing on the Israeli side leads to your apoplectic response?
Bibi is expected to give this and give that,agree to the Saudi plan,kiss Obama's behind etc. etc. And get nothin of consequence in return. I say boolshid.
Peace now is changing their moniker to PACIFYERS DELUX.
I'll be happy if Bibi fulfills the last of Lara's demand as only the Syrian track is viable at present. The Pal track is closed at both ends and opening it up will take at least one presidential term. This will leave actual negotiations for the second term. But peace with Syria might be achieved in one term if both Damascus and Jerusalem can be pressured.